— 
a 27 
of Pterodactylus giganteus.”’ So far as a species can be intelligibly 
defined by figures, that to which the term giganteus was in 1845 pro- 
visionally, and in 1847 absolutely applied, seemed to be clearly enough 
pointed out by the plate 2 in the work above cited. But, with the 
large bones appropriately designated by the term giganteus, some 
parts of a smaller Pterodactyle, including the portions of jaws first 
announcing the genus in the Chalk, had been associated under the 
same name. Supposing those bones to have belonged to a young 
individual of the Pterodactylus giganteus, no difficulty or confusion 
would arise. After instituting, however, a rigid comparison of these 
specimens, when drawing up my Descriptions for Mr. Dixon’s work, 
I was compelled to arrive at the conclusion that the parts figured by 
Mr. Bowerbank in plate 2, figs. 1 & 2, of vol. ii. of the ‘Quarterly Geo- 
logical Journal,’ and the parts figured in plate 2, figs. 1 a & 4, of vol. iv. 
of the same Journal, both assigned by Mr. Bowerbank to the Ptero- 
dactylus giganteus, belonged to two distinct species. The portions 
of the scapula and coracoid of the Pterodactyle (pl. 1. fig. 2, tom. cit.) 
indicated by their complete anchylosis that they had not been part 
of a young individual of the species to which the large antibrachial 
bones (pl. 2. fig. 1 a & 6, tom. cit.) belonged; although they might 
well appertain to the species to which the Jaws (pl. 1. fig. 1) belonged. 
Two species of Pterodactyle were plainly indicated, as I have shown 
in the above-cited work, by my lamented friend Mr. Dixon, ‘On the 
Tertiary and Cretaceous Deposits of Sussex,’ 4to, p- 402. The same 
name could not be retained for both, and it was im obedience to this 
necessity, and not with any idea of detracting an iota from the merit 
of Mr. Bowerbank’s original announcement of the existence of a Pte- 
rodactyle in the chalk, that I proposed the name of conirostris for 
the smaller species, then for the first time distinctly defined and di- 
stinguished from the larger remains to which the name giganteus had 
also been given by Mr. Bowerbank. I proposed the name, more- 
over, provisionally and with submission to the ‘Committee for the 
Reform of Zoological Nomenclature,’ according to whose rules I be- 
lieved myself to be guided. 
My conclusions as to the specific distinction of the remains of the 
smaller Pterodactyle (pl. 1, tom. cit. 1845) from those figured in 
plate 2. tom. cit. 1848, have received full confirmation by the va- 
luable discovery of the portion of the cranium of the truly gigantic 
Pterodactyle, about to be described, to which they belonged ; and it 
is certainly to be wished that, in determining to assign to Mrs. Smith’s 
specimens the name of ‘ giganteus,’ Mr. Bowerbank should have con- 
formed to the following equitable rule of the ‘Committee of Nomen- 
clature’ :—‘*The author who jirst describes and names a species, 
which forms the groundwork of later generalizations, possesses a 
higher claim to have his name recorded than he who afterwards de- 
fines a genus which is found to embrace that species. ...... B 
giving the authority for the specific name in preference to all others, 
the inquirer is referred directly to the original description, habitat, 
&c. of the species, and is at the same time reminded of the date ae 
its discovery.’’ (Reports of the British Association, 1842, p. 120.) 
